CRIMINAL CASE NO. 192 OF 2008
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before me to an offence of trafficking in 1,962.57 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134 (the 2nd count).
Additionally he pleaded guilty to an offence of possession of .61 grammes of ketamine, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the same Ordinance (the 1st count).
The facts of both offences were that on 11 March 2008 the defendant was seen emerging from premises which were under police observation in Kowloon city and was intercepted and then searched.
The drugs the subject of the 1st count were found in two plastic bags in his underpants, and police then took him back into the premises, where the drugs the subject of the 2nd count were found inside a wardrobe in the living room together with various pieces of drug-related paraphernalia.
The defendant was arrested, and admitted the drugs found in the wardrobe were possessed by him for the purposes of trafficking. He also admitted possession of the drugs found in his clothing.
There are of course no particular guidelines for trafficking in large quantities of drugs above the cut-off points nominated in either of HKSAR V Lee Tak Kwan (1998) 2HKC371, which is the sentencing authority applicable to this case, or in Secretary of Justice V Hii Siew Cheng (2008) 3HKC323, which applies to offences committed after 6 June 2008, and it may be that some further consideration should be given to the formulation of guidelines for trafficking in large quantities of ketamine.
In any event, for the purposes of the present case I have been taken to a number of comparable cases by Mr McGowan for the defendant involving similar if not identical amounts of drugs, some with aggravating features and some not, and I have taken those cases into account. See HKSAR V Mustaq Ali Sameer Ahmed cacc215/2006, HKSAR V Yeung Ka Chun Gary CACC500/2006, and HKSAR V Yung Ka Kin CACC240/2007.
So far as the offence the subject of the 2nd count is concerned, I take a starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment. That starting point of sentence is based upon the practical guidelines of sentence contained in Lee Tak Kwan. As I say, the offence occurred in March of 2008, some three months before those guidelines were revised by Hii Siew Cheng, and accordingly they apply to this case.
Mr McGowan advanced various matters relating to the defendant’s family and personal circumstances. Those matters were informational only and could not amount to mitigation. In my view, the only mitigation available to the defendant is his plea of guilty, and the full discount in that regard applies.
Accordingly, so far as the offence the subject of the 2nd count is concerned, the defendant is sentenced to 7 years 4 months’ imprisonment.
So far as the offence the subject of the 1st count is concerned, I take a starting point of sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment. There is no practical need, in the circumstances of this case, to consider any question of a latent risk factor, and again the only mitigation is the defendant’s plea of guilty.
That starting point of sentence is accordingly reduced to a sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment. Given the relatively insignificant quantity of drug involved in the 1st count offence and the less serious nature of that offence, both sentences are ordered to be served concurrently.
That results in a total sentence of 7 years 4 months’ imprisonment.